AN ASSIGNMENT ON CODE OF CONDUCT OF RESPONSIBLE FISHERIES: ARTICLE 11 AND 12 FOR THE COURSE ADVANCES IN FISHING TECHNOLOGY FRM 512

(2+1) By Satish kumar koushlesh FRM MA1 07

CENTRAL INSTITUTE OF FISHERIES EDUCATION (Deemed University) Indian Council of Agricultural Research Versova, Mumbai - 400 061

DECLARATION I here by declare that the above assignment named Code of conduct for responsible fisheries: Article 11 and 12 is solely prepared by me by referring to various references and not simply copied from any of the colleagues .

Date: 15/12/11 Place: Versova

Satish kumar koushlesh FRM MA1-07

CONTENTS TOPIC PAGE NUMBER

INTRODUCTION Fisheries, including aquaculture, provide a vital source of food, employment, recreation, trade and economic well-being for people throughout the world, both for present and future generations and should therefore be conducted in a responsible manner. This Code sets out principles and international standards of behaviour for responsible practices with a view to ensuring the effective conservation, management and development of living aquatic resources, with due respect for the ecosystem and biodiversity. The Code recognizes the nutritional, economic, social, environmental and cultural importance of fisheries and the interests of all those concerned with the fishery sector. The Code takes into account the biological characteristics of the resources and their environment and the interests of consumers and other users. States and all those involved in fisheries are encouraged to apply the Code and give effect to it. The Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries ,adopted on October 31, 1995 by more than 170 members of the FAO, has been described as one of the most important international instruments devised for management of planets aquatic resources. A collection of principles, goals and elements of actions, it sets out standard of behaviour for responsible practices in fisheries. The aim: to ensure effective conservation, management and development of aquatic resources. The code is voluntary in nature and directed at all stake holders of fisheries its production, processing and marketing; its governance and administration.

ARTICLE 11 - POST-HARVEST PRACTICES AND TRADE 11.1 Responsible fish utilization 11.1.1 States should adopt appropriate measures to ensure the right of consumers to safe, wholesome and unadulterated fish and fishery products. 11.1.2 States should establish and maintain effective national safety and quality assurance systems to protect consumer health and prevent commercial fraud.

11.1.3 States should set minimum standards for safety and quality assurance and make sure that these standards are effectively applied throughout the industry. They should promote the implementation of quality standards agreed within the context of the FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission and other relevant organizations or arrangements. 11.1.4 States should cooperate to achieve harmonization, or mutual recognition, or both, of national sanitary measures and certification programmes as appropriate and explore possibilities for the establishment of mutually recognized control and certification agencies. 11.1.5 States should give due consideration to the economic and social role of the post-harvest fisheries sector when formulating national policies for the sustainable development and utilization of fishery resources. 11.1.6 States and relevant organizations should sponsor research in fish technology and quality assurance and support projects to improve post-harvest handling of fish, taking into account the economic, social, environmental and nutritional impact of such projects. 11.1.7 States, noting the existence of different production methods, should through cooperation and by facilitating the development and transfer of appropriate technologies, ensure that processing, transporting and storage methods are environmentally sound. 11.1.8 States should encourage those involved in fish processing, distribution and marketing to: a) reduce post-harvest losses and waste; b) improve the use of by-catch to the extent that this is consistent with responsible fisheries management practices; and c) use the resources, especially water and energy, in particular wood, in an environmentally sound manner. 11.1.9 States should encourage the use of fish for human, consumption and promote consumption of fish whenever appropriate. 11.1.10 States should cooperate in order to facilitate the production of valueadded products by developing countries.

11.1.11 States should ensure that international and domestic trade in fish and fishery products accords with sound conservation and management practices through improving the identification of the origin of fish and fishery products traded. 11.1.12 States should ensure that environmental effects of post-harvest activities are considered in the development of related laws, regulations and policies without creating any market distortions.

11.2 Responsible international trade 11.2.1 The provisions of this Code should be interpreted and applied in accordance with the principles, rights and obligations established in the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement. 11.2.2 International trade in fish and fishery products should not compromise the sustainable development of fisheries and responsible utilization of living aquatic resources. 11.2.3 States should ensure that measures affecting international trade in fish and fishery products are transparent, based, when applicable, on scientific evidence, and are in accordance with internationally agreed rules. 11.2.4 Fish trade measures adopted by States to protect human or animal life or health, the interests of consumers or the environment, should not be discriminatory and should be in accordance with internationally agreed trade rules, in particular the principles, rights and obligations established in the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures and the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade of the WTO.

11.2.5 States should further liberalize trade in fish and fishery products and eliminate barriers and distortions to trade such as duties, quotas and non-tariff barriers in accordance with the principles, rights and obligations of the WTO Agreement.
6

11.2.6 States should not directly or indirectly create unnecessary or hidden barriers to trade which limit the consumer's freedom of choice of supplier or that restrict market access. 11.2.7 States should not condition access to markets to access to resources. This principle does not preclude the possibility of fishing agreements between States which include provisions referring to access to resources, trade and access to markets, transfer of technology, scientific research, training and other relevant elements. 11.2.8 States should not link access to markets to the purchase of specific technology or sale of other products. 11.2.9 States should cooperate in complying with relevant international agreements regulating trade in endangered species. 11.2.10 States should develop international agreements for trade in live specimens where there is a risk of environmental damage in importing or exporting States. 11.2.11 States should cooperate to promote adherence to, and effective implementation of relevant international standards for trade in fish and fishery products and living aquatic resource conservation. 11.2.12 States should not undermine conservation measures for living aquatic resources in order to gain trade or investment benefits. 11.2.13 States should cooperate. to develop internationally acceptable rules or standards for trade in fish and fishery products in accordance with the principles, rights, and obligations established in the WTO Agreement. 11.2.14 States should cooperate with each other and actively participate in relevant regional and multilateral fora, such as the WTO in order to ensure equitable, nondiscriminatory trade in fish and fishery products as well as wide adherence to multilaterally agreed fishery conservation measures.

11.2.15 States, aid agencies, multilateral development banks and other relevant international organizations should ensure that their policies and practices related to the promotion of international fish trade and export production do not result in environmental degradation or adversely impact the nutritional rights and
7

needs of people for whom fish is critical to their health and well-being and for whom other comparable sources of food are not readily available or affordable.

11.3 Laws and regulations relating to fish trade 11.3.1 Laws, regulations and administrative procedures applicable to international trade in fish and fishery products should be transparent, as simple as possible, comprehensible and, when appropriate, based on scientific evidence. 11.3.2 States, in accordance with their national laws, should facilitate appropriate consultation with and participation of industry as well as environmental and consumer groups in the development and implementation of laws and regulations related to trade in fish and fishery products. 11.3.3 States should simplify their laws, regulations and administrative procedures applicable to trade in fish and fishery products without jeopardizing their effectiveness. 11.3.4 When a State introduces changes to its legal requirernents affecting trade in fish and fishery products with other States, sufficient information and time should be given to allow the States and producers affected to introduce, as appropriate, the changes needed in their processes and procedures. In this connection, consultation with affected States on the time frame for implementation of the changes would be desirable. Due consideration should be given to requests from developing countries for temporary derogations from obligations. 11.3.5 States should periodically review laws and regulations applicable to international trade in fish and fishery products in order to determine whether the conditions which gave rise to their introduction continue to exist. 11.3.6 States should harmonize as far as possible the standards applicable to international trade in fish and fishery products in accordance with relevant internationally recognized provisions. 11.3.7 States should collect, disseminate and exchange timely, accurate and pertinent statistical information on international trade in fish and fishery products through relevant national institutions and international organizations.
8

11.3.8 States should promptly notify interested States, WTO and other appropriate international organizations on the development of and changes to laws, regulations and administrative procedures applicable to international trade in fish and fishery products.

ARTICLE 12 - FISHERIES RESEARCH 12.1 States should recognize that responsible fisheries require the availability of a sound .scientific basis to assist fisheries managers and other interested parties in making decisions. Therefore, States should ensure that appropriate research is conducted into} all aspects of fisheries including biology, ecology, technology, environmental science, economics, social science, aquaculture and nutritional science. States should -ensure the availability of research facilities and provide appropriate training, staffing and institution building to conduct the research, taking into account the special needs of developing countries. 12.2 States should establish an appropriate institutional framework to determine the applied research which is required and its proper use. 12.3 States should ensure that data generated by research are analyzed, that the results of such analyses are published, respecting confidentiality where appropriate, and distributed in a timely and readily understood fashion, in order that the best scientific evidence is made available as a contribution to fisheries conservation, management and development. In the absence of adequate .scientific information, appropriate research should be initiated as soon as possible. 12.4 States should collect reliable and accurate data which are required to assess the status of fisheries and ecosystems, including data on bycatch, discards and
9

waste. Where appropriate, this data .should be provided, at an appropriate time and level of aggregation, to relevant States and subregional, regional and global fisheries organizations. 12.5 States should be able to monitor and assess the state of the stocks under their jurisdiction, including the impacts of ecosystem changes resulting from fishing pressure, pollution or habitat alteration. They should also establish the research capacity necessary to assess the effects of' climate or environment change on fish stocks and aquatic ecosystems. 12.6 States should support and strengthen national research capabilities to meet acknowledged scientific standards. 12.7 States, as appropriate in cooperation with relevant international organisations, should encourage research to ensure optimum utilization of fishery resources and stimulate the research required to support national policies related to fish as food. 12.8 States should conduct research into, and monitor, human food supplies from aquatic sources and the environment from which they are taken and ensure that .here is no adverse health impact on consumers. The results of such research should be made publicly available. 12.9 States should ensure that the economic, social, marketing and institutional aspects of fisheries are adequately researched and that comparable data are generated for ongoing monitoring, analysis and policy formulation. 12.10 States should carry out studies on the selectivity of fishing gear, the environmental impact of fishing gear on target species and on the behaviour of target and non-target species in relation to such fishing gear as an aid for management decisions and with a view to minimizing non-utilized catches as well as safeguarding the biodiversity of ecosystems and the aquatic habitat. 12.11 States should ensure that before the commercial introduction of new types of gear, a scientific evaluation of their impact on the fisheries and ecosystems where they will be used should be undertaken. The effects of such gear introductions should be monitored. 12.12 States should investigate and document traditional fisheries knowledge and technologies, in particular those applied to small-scale fisheries, in order to

10

assess their application to sustainable fisheries conservation, management and development. 12.13 States should promote the use of research results as a basis for the setting of management objectives, reference points and performance criteria, as well as for ensuring adequate linkage, between applied research and fisheries management, 12.14 States conducting scientific research activities in waters under the jurisdiction of another State should ensure that their vessels comply with the laws and regulations of that State and international law. 12.15 States should promote the adoption of uniform guidelines governing fisheries research conducted on the high seas. 12.16 States should, where appropriate, support the establishment of mechanisms, including, inter alia, the adoption of uniform guidelines, to facilitate research at the subregional or regional level and should encourage the sharing of the results of such research with other regions. 12.17 States, either directly or with the support of relevant international organizations, should develop collaborative technical and research programmes to improve understanding of the biology, environment and status of transboundary aquatic stocks. 12.18 States and relevant international organizations should promote and enhance the research capacities of developing countries, inter alia, in the areas of data collection and analysis, information, science and technology, human resource development anti provision of research facilities, in order for them to participate effectively in the conservation, management and sustainable use of living aquatic resources. 12.19 Competent rotor national organizations should, where appropriate, render technical and financial support to States upon request and when engaged in research investigations aimed at evaluating stocks which have been previously unfished or very lightly fished. 12.20 Relevant technical and financial international organizations should, upon request, support States in their research efforts, devoting special attention to developing countries, in particular the least developed among them and small island developing countries.
11

ARTICLE 11 AND 12: IMPLEMENTATION CCRF Article 11 deals with post-harvest practices and trade, and is also relevant to aquaculture. Responsible fish utilization is one of the main chapters of this article, claiming the consumer's' right to safe, wholesome and unadulterated fish and fishery products (see also FAO, 1998d). It refers to the work of the FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission and calls on States to promote the implementation of quality standards agreed therein. Those involved in the processing and marketing of fish and fishery products are encouraged to reduce post-harvest losses and waste, to improve the use of by-catch to the extent that this is consistent with responsible fisheries management practices and to use resources such as water and energy, in particular wood, in an environmentally sound manner. The manufacture of value-added fishery products by developing countries is advocated and States are requested to ensure that domestic and international trade in fishery products accord with sound conservation and management practices. This latter remark points towards the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). The Convention can limit, regulate and prohibit trade in these species and products there from if they are listed in one of the Annexes. During the consultations leading to the CCRF, there was a debate of the FAO membership which was related to the remaining two chapters of Article 11 (Responsible International Trade, and Laws and Regulations relating to Fish Trade), and which was strongly influenced by the intention not to create clauses which would contrast with provisions issued under the Agreements leading to the Establishment of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and to make it clear that the formulation of trade rules is the prerogative of the WTO. The Code also states that policies and practices related to the promotion of international fish trade and export production should not result in environmental degradation or adversely impact the nutritional rights and needs of people for whom fish is critical to their health and well-being and for whom other comparable sources of food are not readily available or affordable. According to the Code, laws, regulations and administrative procedures applicable to international fish trade should be transparent, as simple as possible, comprehensible and, when appropriate, based on scientific evidence. They should be reviewed periodically and simplified without jeopardizing their effectiveness. In cases where regulations are changed, sufficient time should be allowed for preparing the implementation of the Code and consultation with
12

affected countries would be desirable. In this connection the Code stipulates that due consideration be given to requests from developing countries for temporary derogation from obligations. In summing up, the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries was adopted by FAO Member Governments in 1995 and is considered as the practical foundation on which to establish sustainable fisheries and aquaculture in the future. The Codes structure and its different components correspond roughly to different groups of stakeholders (fishermen, managers, processors, traders, fish farmers and scientists). The FAO Fisheries Department has been producing a number of Technical Guidelines to assist those concerned in the implementation and adaptation of the recommendations of the Code of Conduct (FAO, 1996a, b, 1997, 1998d). Such guidelines could be complemented as required by specific technical protocols, codes of practice, instruction manuals, best management practices, etc. Responsible Post-harvest Practices and Trade The Regional Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries in Southeast Asia: Responsible Post-Harvest Practices and Trade, serves as reference in identifying directions and priority actions for the implementation of Article 11 (Postharvest Practices and Trade) of the CCRF. Considering that traditional fish products in the ASEAN region still represent a significantly high amount of total fish utilization, the Guidelines also aimed to address this concern under its three main topics: responsible fish utilization, responsible international trade, and laws and regulations related to fish trade. The Guidelines also incorporated relevant provisions of the Resolution and Plan of Action for Food Security for the ASEAN Region. Coordinated by the SEAFDEC Marine Fisheries Department (MFRD), the Guidelines was prepared after a series of consultations with core experts from SEAFDEC and ASEAN Member Countries. It aims to achieve food security and promote trade in domestic, intraregional and international markets, considering that only few countries in the region have the capability to develop food safety and quality assurance in their fish products especially those intended for the foreign markets.

1. Moving towards a regional fisheries management mechanism

13

The recommendation of the ASEAN-SEAFDEC Member Countries during the 2006 Consultation in Phuket, Thailand on the establishment of a Regional Fisheries Management Body as a major long-term policy issue or area for collaboration, gained impetus upon its approval by the 39th Meeting of the Council Meeting in 2007 Siem Reap, Cambodia. 2. Willingness to cooperate in bordering (or trans-boundary) water areas A consensus to promote cooperation between neighbouring countries on the integration of habitat and fisheries management (Refugia) was reached under a common management mechanism. The areas recommended include the Gulf of Thailand, Andaman Sea, South China Sea and Sulu/Sulawesi Sea. With the cooperation of Cambodia, Vietnam and Thailand, the project successfully initiated the process in two locations: Trad Koh Kong (Thailand Cambodia) Kampot Phu Quoc (Cambodia Vietnam) 3. Management of Fishing Capacity in Southeast Asia Since management of fishing capacity is considered the fisheries management issue and considering the regional nature of fishing operation and migration of fish workers, regional cooperation could be attained upon addressing the following issues: As there is no aggregate data on fishing capacity at national or regional level and that available information is more site-specific and relates to projects rather than statistical information, the lack of statistics with respect to fishing capacity especially at small-scale level remains a critical problem Fishing capacity of large-scale fisheries to be addressed in parallel with smallscale fisheries The need for alternative, supplementary income opportunities to facilitate exit from fishery Transboundary and regional aspects of Illegal, Unregistered and Unreported fishing (IUU) Social aspects of reduction and management of fishing capacity

14

4. Successful promotion of cooperation and innovative approaches to management Establishing cooperation with other institutions and projects is crucial to seek broad cooperation even beyond the sphere of fisheries agencies for long-term results. Such cooperation is important in addressing the social, environmental, economical and legal aspects in order to develop innovative approaches for improved regional cooperation. Thus, the project has been instrumental in: Promoting integration of fisheries management into habitat management Initiating activities on providing incentives to fishermen that are fishing in a sustainable way (eco-labelling) Improving coordination between fisheries, environmental and other agencies, including involvement of NGOs at various levels Introducing adaptive management through dialogue among projects and institutions Safety and Quality Requirements The food and feed scares of last decades (bovine spongiform encephalopathy BSE, dioxins, avian flu, SARS, foot and mouth disease) have exposed the weakness in traditional food control systems. Likewise, the increased globalization of fish trade has highlighted the risk of cross-border transmission of hazardous agents and the rapid development of aquaculture has been accompanied by the emergence of food safety concerns, in particular residues of veterinary drugs. These developments have led to the need for the development of a food safety strategy applicable throughout the entire fish food chain- from farm or sea to table. This strategy must be scientifically based, adaptive and responsive to changes in the food production chain. It is articulated around the use of risk analysis to develop food safety objectives and standards and on the implementation of Hazard Analysis Critical Control Points (HACCP) systems. FAO/WHO has identified the following five needs for a strategy in support of a food chain approach to food safety, including for fish and fishery products: Fish safety and quality from a food chain perspective should incorporate the three elements of risk analysis - assessment, management and communication ensuring an institutional separation of sciencebased risk assessment from risk management.
15

Tracing techniques (traceability) from the primary producer (including animal feed and medicines used in aquaculture), through post-harvest treatment, processing and distribution to the consumer must be improved. Harmonisation of standards, implying increased development and wider use of internationally agreed, scientifically-based standards is necessary. Equivalence in food safety systems achieving similar levels of protection against fish-borne hazards and quality defects whatever means of control are used must be further developed. Increased emphasis on risk avoidance or prevention at source within the whole food chain from farm or sea to plate . The implementation of the food chain approach requires an enabling policy and a regulatory environment at national and international levels with clearly defined rules and standards, establishment of appropriate food control systems and programmes at national levels, and provision of appropriate training and capacity building. Development and implementation of Good Aquaculture Practices (GAP), Good Hygienic Practices (GHP) and HACCP are required in the food chain step(s) . Government institutions should develop an enabling policy and a regulatory environment, organize the control services, train personnel, upgrade the control facilities and laboratories and develop national surveillance programs for relevant hazards. The industry should adopt good practices and train personnel to implement GAP, GHP and HACCP. The support institutions (academia, trade associations, private sector, etc.) should upgrade skills of personnel involved in the food chain, conduct research on quality, safety and risk assessments, and provide technical support to stakeholders. Finally, consumers groups and other NGOs should promote consumer education and information and play a counterbalancing role to ensure that safety and quality is science based and not driven only by political or economical considerations.

The globalization and further liberalization of world fish trade, while offering many benefits and opportunities, also presents emerging safety and quality challenges. Improved scientific tools must be adopted and novel flexible approaches to safety must be sought to ensure that responsibility for consumer protection is effectively shared along the food chain and that regulations and standards reflect the most current
16

scientific evidence. This requires significant resources which are not always available, especially for small scale operations in developing countries. Fish safety and quality assurance at the beginning of this third millennium requires enhanced levels of international co-operation in promoting transparency, harmonisation, equivalency schemes and standards setting mechanisms based on science. The SPS/TBT agreements of the WTO and the benchmarking role of the Codex alimentarius provide an international reference in this respect. Labelling and certification Certification and labelling have become important competitive parameters to access international fish markets. Not only must suppliers adhere to the regulatory requirements of importing countries, but additional labels or certificates may also be required by the importer for commercial and marketing reasons. In the same way, the supplier may also choose to apply particular labels or undergo voluntary certification programmes in order to target specific segments of consumers, thereby gaining a competitive advantage in market niches. Similarly, companies may choose to produce according to specific requirements that permit them to label their products as environmentally friendly or produced in respect of certain social values. Examples of such labelling include: "organic production" labels, "fair trade" labels", "dolphin-safe tuna" labels or ecolabels such as those of the Marine Stewardship Council MSC or Friend of the Sea FoS . An eco-label is a tag or label placed on a product that certifies that the fish was produced in an environmentally friendly way. The label provides information at the point of sale that links the product to the production process. In fisheries, the increased interest in eco-labels results from the concerns about the dramatic state of the worlds marine resources. The perceived failure of governments to effectively manage marine resources has led to the development of alternative mechanisms for protecting marine life and promoting sustainability. These are aimed at influencing the purchasing decisions of consumers and the procurement policies of retailers. Eco-labels are one such mechanism. Organizations developing and managing an ecolabel develop standards against which applicants wishing to use the label will be judged. They also manage the accreditation and certification process, and market the label to consumers to ensure recognition and demand for labelled products. Other mechanisms used by NGOs include;

17

Publicity campaigns or organized boycotts or of certain species deemed to be threatened such as the Give Swordfish a Break campaign in the United States in the late 1990s; Consumer guides to influence consumers purchasing decisions, such as the Best Fish Guide of the New Zealand Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society or The Sustainable Seafood Guide, produced by Eartheasy, Canada; Putting pressure on retailers to introduce sustainable procurement policies for fish and seafood. This is perhaps most developed in the United Kingdom where Greenpeace is working with large retailers and produces annual league table, Ranking of the sustainability of supermarkets seafood. Greenpeace also uses naming and shaming strategies such as media-savvy protests outside retail outlets.

These strategies can be seen in terms of a continuum from more reactive mechanisms that highlight and shame bad practice, to more proactive activities: encouraging consumers to purchase fish from sustainable stocks, and working with retailers to improve their procurement policies, as well as rewarding those that do with positive publicity. Buyers and retailers have in turn responded by imposing private standards and certification back through the supply chain, especially on producers and processors. These developments have resulted in the proliferation of certification bodies and schemes designed to trace the origin of fish, its quality and safety, the environmental and/or social conditions prevailing during fishing, aquaculture production, processing and distribution (Washington and Ababouch, 2011). But as standards, certification schemes and labels proliferate; both producers and consumers are questioning their value. Producers in particular question whether these private standards and certification schemes duplicate or complement government work. In addition consumers ask if the private schemes really provide better protection for them and the environment and/or contribute to social equity. Many producers and exporting countries hold the view that sanitary standards represent unjustified restrictions to trade, especially where they introduce measures which duplicate those already applied by government authorities of the exporting country. This raises the issue of how to define boundaries between public regulations dealing with food safety, animal health, environmental and social protection on the one hand and private market standards on the other?
18

And who is responsible for what and accountable to whom? While governments that are seen to use standards as trade barriers can be challenged through the rules of WTO, what international mechanism, or agreement, should be invoked to challenge private companies whose standards are judged to create technical barriers to trade between countries? Several countries and industry associations have raised serious concerns about the potential for private standards to have trade limiting or trade distorting effects (WTO, 2008). Proponents of private standards and certification schemes claim that they encourage suppliers to force the use of responsible practices in fisheries and aquaculture. Opponents of such standards see them as a private sector attempt to replace/duplicate governmental policy in fisheries and aquaculture. The key issue is how private standards and certification schemes, if needed, can be reconciled with the public sectors responsibility to regulate the use of responsible practices in fisheries and aquaculture, throughout the food chain. These issues require a concerted international effort. A precondition for an international understanding and an approach to dealing with this issue is better knowledge. More must be known about the effects of private standards and certification schemes. Such knowledge may make it possible to propose solutions that will ensure coherence of private standards with WTO trade measures. It is also necessary to analyze if and how private standards are duplicating or complementing the work of government authorities. Such an analysis will have a particular focus on the effects that private standards and certification schemes are having on developing countries capacities to access markets

FISHERIES REASEARCH IN INDIA (1) By catch Reduction devices : The growing concern on the bycatch due to commercial gear is taken in to consideration and the development of new devices to be installed or modification on the existing design of gear is the main thurst area . Central
19

Institute of Fishing Technology (CIFT) , Kochi is assigned with the development of TEDs , Fish eye , Fish window , Radial escapement devices . (2) Development of selective gears : The CIFT has developed some advanced variants of the trawl gear used by the traditional trawl fleet . This is to reduce the impact of fishing over the flora and fauna of the aquatic system e.g. High end opening trawl , High speed demersal trawl , Duplex and Triplex trawl , separator trawl , Large mesh opening trawl . (3) Development of FADs : The Fish aggregating device is developed to reduce the fishing time and to flourish the fish stocks . (4) Remote sensing of marine areas is done to determine the potential fishing zone (PFZ) and to disseminate the data to the fishermen . (5) Assessment of the coral reef ecosystem and the mangrove ecosystem . (6) Mechanisation effort for the fishig fleet to reduce the labour intensiveness . (7) Development of deep sea fishing fleet . (8) Development of more hygienic processing methods and complaiments to the national and international standards , CONCLUSION their

The code is the fundamental base on which the countries policies for trade of fish and fishery products rely for their development . The non mandatory and voluntary nature of the code gives the states the sufficient flexibility while formulating their policies in accordance to the existing situations and scenarios .A wide variety of regulations and norms are adopted by different countries to sustain their fisheries industries also research on fisheries is being carried out by governmental and non governmental agencies to reduce the harmfull effects of fishing and post harvest activities .

20

References www.FAO.org.in Ababouch, L and El Marrakchi, A. 2009. Elaboration des semi-conserves danchois: aspects conomiques, techniques et hyginiques. FAO Document Technique sur les Pches et lAquaculture No 525. Rome. 90 pp. FAO, 2010. The state of Fisheries and Aquaculture. Rome. 197 pp. FAO/WHO, 2011. Joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultation on the Risks and Benefits of Fish Consumption (in press). Gudmundsson, E., Asche, F., Nielsen, M. 2006. Revenue distribution through the seafood value chain FAO Fisheries circular No 1019. Rome, 42 pp. Kelleher, K. 2005.Discards in the worlds marine fisheries. An update. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper. No. 470. Rome. 131p. Kurien, J. 2006. Responsible fish trade and food security. FAO fisheries technical paper 456. Rome Italy. 162 Pages. Lewin GA, Schachter HM, Yuen D, Merchant P, Mamaladze V, Tsertsvadze A, 2005. Effects of omega-3 fatty acids on child and maternal health. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
21

(AHRQ). Evid Rep Technol Assess (Summ) 1-11. Martinez M, 1992. Tissue levels of polyunsaturated fatty acids during early human development. J Pediatr;120:S129-38. Mozaffarian D, Rimm EB. 2006. Fish intake, contaminants, and human health: evaluating the risks and the benefits. JAMA;296:1885-99. OSullivan, G and bengoumi, J, 2008. Market penetration of developing country seafood products in European retail chains. Globefish Research Programme. Volume 90. 48 p. FAO. Rome, Italy World Trade Organization, 2008. Considerations relevant to private standards in the field of animal health, food safety and animal welfare. G/SPS/GEN/822. WTO, Geneva. Switzerland. FAO/WHO, Joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultation on the Risks and Benefits of Fish Consumption; 2011 (in press). Rome, Italy. Washington, S and Ababouch, L. 2011. Private standards and certification in fisheries and aquaculture. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture technical Paper 553. Rome, 181 pp Sciortino, J.A., 2010. Fishing harbour planning, construction and management. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper. No. 539. Rome, FAO. 337p. Ward A.R, 2007 Post harvest loss assessment in PP3 zones of Cameron, Chad, Gambia and Senegal:key learning. FAO/DFID Sustainable Fisheries Livelihoods Programme Post harvest Fisheries Livelihoods Pilot Project. SFLP-FAO, Cotonou, Benin. 60p. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), 1995. Multilingual dictionary of fish and fishery products. Fishing News Books. 352 pages. London.

22